new editing ruleset - DPChallenge Forums

02/14/2014 12:32:49 PM · #1

I've always wondered if we needed another editing ruleset here, located at a point between advanced and expert.

maybe its because i find most of my editing falls within this area, maybe i wish i had more control and was able to polish my images more. I dont really enter my best work and i don't really enter free studies because anything i want to enter breaks the rules.

essentially you could use tools in expert, but you maintain photographic integrity, i.e you really cant tell its not a single photograph unless you saw the source files. Things like major cloning, or replacing body parts with those from another image if the posing is off or something isn't right.

just trying to start a conversation here... maybe this is what expert was intended to be but has morphed away from. maybe we have this rulset in expert but we need another rule set to encompasses the spirit of the fantastic digital art that graces the font page on occasion.

Message edited by author 2014-02-14 12:34:32.

Garry

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/14/2014 12:46:19 PM · #2

I like the idea. Often take images where say the sky is bland, and would like to change the sky for one with more interesting clouds, or a nice sunset etc.

Or, if you have a scene but its missing something and want to add something.

Images are all mine, taken during the challenge time period. No artificial elements as you would be able to do in Expert.

It would have to have a source file limit though to avoid heavy compositing. Say max 2 or 3 source file images.

dtremain

Canon EOS 80D

02/14/2014 12:48:57 PM · #3

What is allowed in Expert that you would prohibit in your 'tween rule set?

Personally, I'd like to see some of the limitations of Expert removed (like adding text, graphics, using images taken outside date range as supplements to the main image).

02/14/2014 12:49:17 PM · #4

im thinking even that is overboard, maybe if the sky is blown out and you wish to replace it from an image, exposed properly with the same composition, instead of going all HDR on the entry.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/14/2014 12:53:01 PM · #5

Originally posted by dtremain:

What is allowed in Expert that you would prohibit in your 'tween rule set?

basically creating by composite or digital artwork and getting the entries back to more inlne of being photographic is nature. i'd also hate to see the great works of Samantha and Christophe abolished but reading the expert rulset they seem way off of the spirit of what it had intended, yet i also feel they have a place here.

Message edited by author 2014-02-14 12:53:45.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/14/2014 12:54:24 PM · #6

It's REALLY hard to define this potential ruleset of yours in such a way as to make it reasonably enforceable.

For example, you talk about replacing body pieces with their counterparts from other images. I know exactly what you have in mind: *this* particular shot is perfect except that her fingers are curled and her left eye is drooping a little, but *that* shot from the same burst has the eye as it should be, and *here* we have a shot from a few minutes later with the perfect hand... And you may be thinking about backgrounds too: you used the same background for all the poses but LIT it differently as you went. *Here* you have the perfect pose, but *there* the BG lighting is awesome, so... switcheroo!

But how do we define this in such a way as to keep you from putting Jenny's head on Amy's body, then swapping in Emily's oh-so-perfect legs? That's easy enough, right? All parts from the same person, right? Well that's not so easy to verify, if we're talking parts, hypothetically, but let that go for a bit, assume we do it that way. Now, what about landscapes? I've got a harbor view I'd love to shoot but it always has this hideously ugly piece-of-junk boat smack in the middle of it. Hey, this rule takes care of that! I'll just shoot another boat in the same harbor and transplant it! I'm sure one of our mountaineers would occasionally love to move his/her mountains around :-) Where are we going to draw the line, between this rule and the current expert rules, where all of this is allowed?

Is it really so much of a difference, one of Gyaban's fantasy creations versus your hypothetical patchworked model, conceptually? I'd say no... Conceptually, it's just a matter of degree between what Christophe creates and what the high-end fashion-magazine photo editors do, isn't it?

All of this, BTW, is just by way of continuing the conversation, not saying it can't be done. Speaking for myself, I wish our expert rules were a LOT more limited...

02/14/2014 12:59:49 PM · #7

isn't that why we pay you guys?

ETA, you make great points, but if expert was intended to be what i suggest as i think it was, the fact that it gets taken to the extreme that it happened simply because you cant concretely enforce people to follow the spirit of the rules.

Message edited by author 2014-02-14 13:03:02.

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

02/14/2014 01:09:36 PM · #8

I like this idea, maybe we could keep the same rules as expert but put a flag in some challenges saying they need to be photographic in nature. Or a flag saying minimalist expert. Both meaning the same thing: that the image should look like it could have been taken under the advanced editing ruleset. That way if someone put it a photo like Gyabans they wouldn't be disqualified but they would probably get scored lower for not following the spirit of the challenge.

For example: If I wanted to switch the head of my model and it still looks pretty much like the original but with better eyes. Or if I took a photo of a lake but didn't want the boat in it that would work too. However if I wanted to switch the head of my model with the head of a horse. Or took a photo of a lake with a man walking on top of it, then those photos would not be disqualified but would most likely be scored lower.

Plus a flag for a challenge may be much easier to convince langdon to do rather than having to make a whole new ruleset. (which we know is very very unlikely to happen.)

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

02/14/2014 01:15:32 PM · #9

Originally posted by sjhuls:

The problem is -- people will mark down for things that may be perfectly legal assuming it's not real:

drat -- I can't find the link -- but someone posted photography, where people looked like they were standing on water. Gorgeous photos. But the trick was that the person was standing on submerged footstools.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/14/2014 01:18:26 PM · #10

Should I point out that the expert ruleset ALREADY says that things should be photographic in nature?

You should:
Keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/14/2014 01:23:32 PM · #11

Originally posted by Cory:

As Mike said:

Originally posted by mike:

...if expert was intended to be what i suggest as i think it was, the fact that it gets taken to the extreme that it happened simply because you can't concretely enforce people to follow the spirit of the rules.

We can't enforce the spirit of the rule, and it's proven to be difficult to WRITE a rule that quantifies "photographic in nature" in such a way as to make it evenly enforceable.

Message edited by author 2014-02-14 13:24:56.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/14/2014 01:23:40 PM · #12

Originally posted by Cory:

ding ding.

but we cant really complain when we vote these images with such high scores.

Message edited by author 2014-02-14 13:31:02.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/14/2014 01:33:43 PM · #13

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Cory:
Should I point out that the expert ruleset ALREADY says that things should be photographic in nature?

You should:
Keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly.

ding ding.

but we cant really complain when we vote these images with such high scores.

Precisely â�� I think your problem is more with the voters than with the editing rules.

02/14/2014 01:34:14 PM · #14

Originally posted by Mike:

Hey, it's pissed me off for years. Join the club - I have NO idea what the hell the voters are smoking.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/14/2014 01:35:10 PM · #15

Honestly, I really think it's just that they're either too stupid to actually read the rules, or that they're just so emotionally driven that they don't have the ability to be objective when voting.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/14/2014 01:44:42 PM · #16

To be fair, "photographic in nature" is a pretty broad concept. Does it mean "constructed out of photographs", "looks photographic", or "looks like it could BE an actual photograph of a real thing"? IMO, it's impossible to argue that anything that satisfies the first definition doesn't also satisfy the spirit of the rule, as written, so images like Christophe's and Samantha's (which are constructed out of actual photographs)ought to pass muster with anyone who's actually READ the rules...

Message edited by author 2014-02-14 13:45:58.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/14/2014 01:51:26 PM · #17

I *think* the third definition is what was intended ... that it should look like a photograph of an actual scene, even if the scene never existed in the form shown. Possibly my best example:

blindjustice

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/14/2014 02:34:26 PM · #18

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

What is interesting, is that Gyaban's backdrops are elaborately and meticulously crafted stunning landscapes, water and forest-scapes. And if it was ever possible to keep a shot of multiple fish people with holes through their bodies "photographic in nature" - I guess he accomplishes it.

I know what Mike is talking about. Actually keeping it "photo-realistic" in nature. But that would require far too much subjective judgment from SC it appears.

02/14/2014 02:34:51 PM · #19

okay then, how about a flag that says it must be something that could happen in real life, no fantasy stuff. I mean I like those too, but I think it would be nice to have some expert editing that were not so fantasy driven. I don't know exactly how you would word it but you know what I mean.

mrchhas

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

02/14/2014 02:59:29 PM · #20

Wouldn't it be easy enough to flag an expert challenge every once in a while with "must be composed of a single image"??
Really that's what it seems is the problem...

ETA: single image as defined by our current advanced ruleset...

Message edited by author 2014-02-14 15:03:56.

blindjustice

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/14/2014 03:08:57 PM · #21

Originally posted by mrchhas:

Wouldn't it be easy enough to flag an expert challenge every once in a while with "must be composed of a single image"??
Really that's what it seems is the problem...

well, sometimes you shoot the same group of people, or a street shot, where you could insert parts from many different images, but it could be a "plausible" not "fantasy" image.

02/14/2014 03:17:26 PM · #22

Originally posted by mrchhas:

How would this be different from advanced editing?

02/14/2014 03:21:16 PM · #23

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by mrchhas:
Wouldn't it be easy enough to flag an expert challenge every once in a while with "must be composed of a single image"??
Really that's what it seems is the problem...

well, sometimes you shoot the same group of people, or a street shot, where you could insert parts from many different images, but it could be a "plausible" not "fantasy" image.

exactly and this is what we are talking about this would be allowed and encouraged. I think it is more the direction mike was going for. Maybe your example is a little more extreme than mike wanted, but to be able to use different photos to compose the best possible portrait, landscape, streetshot or what have you. But not get into the fantasy realm of things.

02/14/2014 03:28:20 PM · #24

Originally posted by sjhuls:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by mrchhas:
Wouldn't it be easy enough to flag an expert challenge every once in a while with "must be composed of a single image"??
Really that's what it seems is the problem...

well, sometimes you shoot the same group of people, or a street shot, where you could insert parts from many different images, but it could be a "plausible" not "fantasy" image.

exactly and this is what we are talking about this would be allowed and encouraged. I think it is more the direction mike was going for. Maybe your example is a little more extreme than mike wanted, but to be able to use different photos to compose the best possible portrait, landscape, streetshot or what have you. But not get into the fantasy realm of things.

Radical idea:

Vote very harshly on 'fantasy' images.